Or just images you pulled from elsewhere?
This post has been edited by jedH: 03 August 2010 - 11:05 PM
Western Digital Caviar Green 2TB Review
If you would like to remove this advertisement, please register.
Posted 04 August 2010 - 09:54 PM
Damn, would've been interesting if you had the -00MVWB0 (667GB 3-platter).
I suspect all-round performance & power draw would've been slightly better.
Oh well, thanks for confirming....
Has anyone come across any thorough English reviews/discussions that compare the WD20EARS-00MVWB0 with other 2TB "green" makes/models?
I'm finding that there's a real lack of comparative data...
There's heaps of Japanese & German reviews/discussions, but gtranslate sux, & most of them focus only on figures for the one drive.
Posted 09 August 2010 - 01:00 AM
Thanks for the review - it has been helpful.
However, you seem to be somewhat confused about the nature of the current generation of Advanced Format drives.
Firstly, they are 4k sectors internally - but externally they expose exactly the same 512 byte SATA interface as non-Advanced Format drives. i.e. they do not need drivers and there is no special support for them in Vista, Win 7, OS X or Linux. The reason that these OS's work so well with AF drives is because they naturally align their partitions on 4k boundaries - and this means that their clusters line up with the internal sectors. e.g Vista and Win 7 partitions start on the 1MB boundary.
Windows XP, by comparison, creates it's first partition at sector 63 - which is not a 4k boundary (it's out by 1), and therefore as it reads a cluster from the disk (using multiple 512-byte sector reads) the disk has to read 2 sectors from the disk since the cluster spans 2 sectors - and this is the only drawback with AF drives - a performance penalty when using unaligned partitions. To fix this, the WD Align tool shifts XP partitions to a 4k boundary - easy. Alternatively, you can use a jumper on pins 7 & 8 on the drive which offsets of the sector numbers by 1 (so that when you read sector 1 you are really getting sector 2 - and the real sector 0 is unaddressable) - and this has the effect of putting "sector 63" at sector 64 and therefore aligns XP partitions.
The WD Align tool does not provide "512-byte emulation" as claimed and there are other ways to achieve alignment on a 4k boundary. One example is when moving your existing XP partition to an AF drive using Symantec Ghost, use the "-align=1mb" command line switch when restoring the image and Ghost will align the partition for you.
So I am not really sure what the review tells us when it is comparing the WD20EARS non-4k - it's not useful data, as you have to go out of your way to make it perform badly, and the performance hit would apply to any AF drive when used with non-aligned partitions.
Posted 09 August 2010 - 08:22 AM
We include that stats since those are the default settings in IOMeter which we test all drives under. With 4K drives we need to specifically tell IOMeter to align the sectors in 4K chunks. We aren't out to make the drive perform worse by any means, but we do need to test it on the same base level as other drivers, even if we also include 4K stats.
Wanted to clarify something. IOMeter by default aligns by reported sector boundaries. All of the consumer 4K drives on the market right now report as 512-byte sectors even though they physically have 4K sectors. This is for backwards compatibility. So when we run IOMeter in the default settings to compare them against other drives the results get skewed by the mismatch.
Posted 11 September 2010 - 06:49 PM
No one's answered the question about how well this drive will work with WHS v1, which is based on the Server 2003 architecture.
MS just advised NOT to use Advanced format drives like these with WHS products. See http://support.micro...b/2385637/en-us .
I have a couple of EARS drives, and would like to get the HP 495 server to use with them. But because of warnings like these, I'm inclined to wait for WHS v2 (codename "Vail") instead.
By all means, if there's some new patch or other workaround that solves the problem, please post it.
Thanks for the review!
Posted 01 October 2010 - 10:06 AM
1 User(s) are reading this topic